Should we ban him?

[HappyKilleenite]

Frankly, I think that all the dialog he has generated is precisely his goal: he desires attention and controversy. I say let him stay and then frustrate the heck out of him by doing absolutely nothing! No replies, no responses.....he'll die on the vine like all bad fruit eventually does. If he reappears under another identity it will be as the same bad apple and he'll rot away sooner or later......the sooner....the better.

[Texas Immigrant]

I was thinking the same thing HappyKilleenite. Do you think it would work to simply ignore him/her? If people are maybe warned about this type of user when they receive the welcome email from the forum, can't people just scan over and ignore all posts? Won't he get bored?

[FieryPrincess]

I also think it is related to a psychological need for something. I can click "add as a foe" and never see another post.

Better than the delete button and it stops feeding any troll posts while preserving our original stated goal of not censoring. I really think this outrageousness is some sort of test on that.

[Army Sarge]

Don't allow emotionally charged words like "censorship" to dissuade the purpose for this topic post, as well as what might be deemed necessary action in order to maintain a forum that serves its actual intended purpose- the free exchange of ideas and the open intellectual debate thereof.

Trolls come in many forms and survive on attention alone- nothing else. Negative attention is better, as it generally resultts in more responses as well as the pleasure a troll feels in getting someone spun up over an invented personality. The only way, and I mean the ONLY way, to make a troll go away is to completely ignore them. Don't mention their name, don't speak of them in the third person, and never, under any circumstances, reply to ANY of their posts, even ones that seem innocuous or positive. That said....

Some folks will make reference to why this forum was started and say something like "Do we really want to start censoring people? That's why we left that other forum at the KDH and came here instead." I think that is a failed argument for a couple of reasons.

(1) The KDH was selectively removing posts that criticized it for running that bogus story on the front page for 2 days. While they own the forums and I could understand not wanting to keep posts that they might find patently offensive, I don't think that honest critique of the paper is sufficient grounds for removing posts that they simply find embarrassing because it was their staff that got duped. They may have a legal right to do it, but that doesn't make it good practice. (And the 1st Amendment does not apply in this regard by the way. That is a privately owned and operated bulletin board, and the owners do in fact have the ability to permit or deny what it deems OK on its own board. The first amendment was written to protect individuals and the press from Government opression in their expression of opinions, even if they are critical of that government. It was never intended to enable those whose sole purpose was to cause dissent under the cloak of authority of speaking under the pretense of "Freedom of speech".)

(2) everyone who signs up for the forum does so in the good faith that the other users of the forum are also doing so with the intent of expressing ideas and opinons while encouraging healthy debate, even disagreement, in a civil manner, or in some cases, it may occasionally become a little less civil when the issue being discussed is very emotional for some people. However, to enter into the user agreement and agree to the terms while at the outset having the intent to undermine them is disingenuous and, IMHO, violates the terms of use. They are therefore setting the conditions which cause them to be banned from using the product for violation of the terms of its use. Banning a user who violates the spirit and intent of the agreement is not censorship. Selectively removing topics one simply disagress with is.


If any banned user feels like they were treated unfairly, then tell them to get a full and complete refund of their membership fees and join elsewhere.

My 2 cents.

[Scarlett]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I also think it is related to a psychological need for something. I can click "add as a foe" and never see another post.

Better than the delete button and it stops feeding any troll posts while preserving our original stated goal of not censoring. I really think this outrageousness is some sort of test on that.

A good point! Anyone who has been offended by him should simply do that. I truly believe in ignoring bad behavior to make it go away. It is no different than raising a child or teaching school...to a kid...ANY attention is better than NO attention. I used to teach nothing but kids who were classified as having severe emotional and behavioral disorders. Once I taught myself THAT, and learned to give them attention for GOOD stuff and simply respond in NO way to the crap, the crap stopped.

(Ok, I DID respond to the desk flying at my head once...but...ya know....)

[Night Owl]

He is a troll and brings nothing to the discussion.

[SunDevil]

I was going to suggest just putting him on your ignore list. After everyone ignores him, he won't have anyone to pester anymore and lose interest.

[Dagobert II]

He doesn't bother me. I don't even need an ignore button to ignore posts that have no thread content. It's not like I have to inhale anyone's posts. On the other hand, if offensive posts drive content driven posters off the board there won't be anyone left to discuss the issues.

[Admin]

For everyone's information, two warnings were sent that night.

Whatever decide will be done to all who act in the same abusive manner. But I know that I will not be sitting here editing posts. I have better things to do.

[Army Sarge]

From the user control panel:
"Foes are users which will be ignored by default. Posts by these users will not be fully visible. Personal messages from foes are still permitted"

Personally, I don't care to even have to make the effort to assign a "Foe" moniker to a troll, especially when their posts are still partially visible (still giving them hope and therefore encouraging more of the same drivel from them) and further that personal messages cannot be blocked from them.

If you want to encourage membership from folks who actually have something to contribute to the debates being presented by the members of the forums, then demonstrate that by banning people whose sole purpose is clearly not debate or the expression of opinion, but to cause dissention and disruption. If you don't think that's the case, just take a look at any thread from any forum board that starts out as a good debate, even if the topic is controversial, and see what happens to the threads and participation when some knucklehead troll gets on the board and begins spewing their multi-page dementia for no purpose other than to take up space and hopefully generate frustration on the part of the other users.

As the admin said, he/she has better things to do than edit posts...I concur...and I have better things to do than to have to scroll through page after page of some vitriolic diatribe just to identify who I want to assign the "Foe" label to, only to have to see that they still have posts there and can send PMs to anybody and fill up their respective boxes with more of the same tripe. PLUS, not banning a troll and instead telling members to simply put them on ignore only encourages trolls to obtain additional user names via registration through proxy servers using multiple web-based e-mail accounts so they can continue their ramblings under an assumed name. In fact, you can even occasionally catch them talking to themselves via one of their assumed monikers to the other.

I guess that makes 4 cents. Sorry about that...